abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
It doesn't bother me so much when focus is on Trump, as long as it's not simply politicizing the crisis. There is an important distinction there and I want to get it straight right off the bat. That has always been what annoys me about it. Now it's coming off as though I'm somehow aligned with Trump. He's just not that important to me. He's inneffective and dumb and makes too good of a scapegoat for all of the problems. It's too convenient of a narrative for those making mistakes on the other side.idk, it seems pretty reasonable the way he said it to me:
Aside from it turning out that we should have been warned harder at that point the world had about a week on us since Trump was busy distracting everyone by buzzing Nascar in his victory lap, it wasn't until he was on his way back from India that the CDC now has been shown to have jumped at the chance to declare 'Holy Shit this is bad' and the world jumped at the same time.
I know you hate it turning into a Trump thread, but he is POTUS and makes it impossible to see strait. But it is also useful in remembering the timeline. His State of the Union was Feb 5th, 14 days after that would have been Feb 19th, (jesus christ) the day Blagoavich was pardoned along with other deplorables and the 'Princess-something' with 600+ people with coronavirus got off in Japan and world deaths from it hit 2k.
Imagine how much better off we would have been if he would have used the power of the State of the Union address to detail a plan and mobilize our country then when it was getting bad.
I agree that people in a full lockdown are going home, sitting down, coughing and sneezing on their computer/phones/tv's countertops/remotes/doornobs etc and just multiplying the virus they shed everywhere that builds up for 17 days where it peaks and starts dying off maintaining a kind of level to what the person shedding it is at, then it should start decreasing as the person overcomes the virus until it completely (hopefully right) decreases to zero 17 days after the person is recovered fully.
So by sending them home, they are getting sicker and sicker until they get hospitalized and that is when they get tested in Michigan anyways.
The lockdown has basically forced people to be safe if they haven't gotten it yet, or if they had but not in a way to get sick. This starts to get into an area I don't feel like I know enough to understand the scientific differences between who/what/where/when and how of the tests.
And people who are asymptomatic who have been on lockdown stay really infective and not know it could re-infect everyone when they go back to work.
But that said, I think you are putting too much faith in the numbers meaning something here. And so far we are and haven't been on lockdown to know how it would have worked out if we did go on it when it actually mattered.
With that out of the way. My point bringing this up is that I was paying attention to this from the very beginning, taking it very seriously and almost begging people to take it seriously. Certain people have resisted that from the very start. Even if they seemed to sound sorta reasonable, there was just a slight amount of nay-saying that continually amplified in every subsequent nay-saying post for the next 3 months. Forget if it comes out later that I'm proven correct all along, fine. But then look at the other thread. I didn't insult anyone. I didn't make a partisan argument. I didn't dismiss anyone's arguments out of hand. In fact I was from the beginning patient and displayed intellectual honesty.
It sounded like the kind of shit Trump was saying. It was annoying and stupid and displayed a complete lack of understanding of virology and for someone who knows so little, it's insulting to see that you're even commenting. "Yeah but the flu"...Yes I thought it was a reasonable statement as well, thanks!!!